This really shouldn't be a debate. Legalization is a slam dunk. You have the successful models in other states already. Throw in the fact that we have major cities bordering our state, we could easily draw in some major revenue via "tourism." Atlantic City could have something drawing people to it, again. Camden could start to make a come-back in some parts as a destination.

The downside could be a much more crowded PATH. The plus side could be that the PATH might be pressured to run more trains later and over the weekend...

Both prohibitions taught millions of decent people to ignore the law of the land. They both allowed bad guys with guns to make a fortune. And today, we add a modern twist by imprisoning African-Americans for weed crimes at three times the rate of whites.

mpwJC wrote:There is actual data out there nowadays regarding the impact of marijuana legalization on the use of marijuana by children. We are no longer living in a country where everyone can say "what if?" to the hypothetical scenario of marijuana legalization.

In 2002, recreational marijuana was illegal in all 50 states. Medical marijuana was allowed in only a few states. That year, 8.2% of Americans aged 12-17 used marijuana in the past month, per the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

In 2016, recreational marijuana was legal or in the process of becoming legal in Colorado, Alaska, California, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Medical marijuana was legal in over half of all states. That year, 6.5% of Americans aged 12-17 used marijuana in the past month.

Legalizing a substance for adult use doesn't preclude adults from continuing to teach children the dangers of drug and alcohol use and abuse. Defending prohibition based on some false narrative about protecting the children is a stance not based in reality and is frankly insulting in 2018.

Dolomiti wrote:Guess I need to find the phone number for his office....

One of his concerns is "what message do we send our children?" if we legalize. I would say the message is we'll no longer waste public resources and destroy lives jailing people for using or distributing an intoxicant far less harmful than those currently legal: alcohol and tobacco.

I smoked pot in HS and college with people who went on to be high powered hedge funders, lawyers, doctors, and one who was a GWB appointed US District Attorney. Law enforcement has destroyed far more lives than cannabis has. And we haven't even touched on the race and class bias in that enforcement.

There is actual data out there nowadays regarding the impact of marijuana legalization on the use of marijuana by children. We are no longer living in a country where everyone can say "what if?" to the hypothetical scenario of marijuana legalization.

In 2002, recreational marijuana was illegal in all 50 states. Medical marijuana was allowed in only a few states. That year, 8.2% of Americans aged 12-17 used marijuana in the past month, per the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

In 2016, recreational marijuana was legal or in the process of becoming legal in Colorado, Alaska, California, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. Medical marijuana was legal in over half of all states. That year, 6.5% of Americans aged 12-17 used marijuana in the past month.

Legalizing a substance for adult use doesn't preclude adults from continuing to teach children the dangers of drug and alcohol use and abuse. Defending prohibition based on some false narrative about protecting the children is a stance not based in reality and is frankly insulting in 2018.

Dolomiti wrote:Guess I need to find the phone number for his office....

One of his concerns is "what message do we send our children?" if we legalize. I would say the message is we'll no longer waste public resources and destroy lives jailing people for using or distributing an intoxicant far less harmful than those currently legal: alcohol and tobacco.

I smoked pot in HS and college with people who went on to be high powered hedge funders, lawyers, doctors, and one who was a GWB appointed US District Attorney. Law enforcement has destroyed far more lives than cannabis has. And we haven't even touched on the race and class bias in that enforcement.

Unfortunately, some state legislators are not thrilled with the idea of full recreational access. One such legislator is Brian Stack of Hudson County. They might have the votes, but it likely depends on the composition of the final bill. Guess I need to find the phone number for his office....http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/ ... already_in_trouble_w.html

I reached out to him on Facebook as well. The article doesn't explain any of his possible reasoning for being against legalization, so I'll let him make his case, but I will vote against him in every election if he isn't in favor of something the vast majority of NJ and Hudson County supports.

I left him a voicemail on his cell and he surprisingly called me back. Him and I had a debate for about 10 minutes on the issue. He feels there haven't been enough hearings and the anti-legalization crowd (do they even really exist in large numbers?) hasn't been given any voice. He also cited some "quality of life" concerns and cited his mayorship of Union City as another point of opposition. He also used the "slippery slope" argument, as in "Oh, what's next, are we going to legalize cocaine after this?"

He also cited the revenue just being squandered/wasted, so I told him why doesn't he just introduce an amendment to ensure those funds aren't fungible and are only dedicated to one purpose (i.e. NJ Transit, education, property tax releif, etc). I also mentioned there are no studies that indicate MJ is any more harmful than the already legal drug of alcohol and given that Hudson County has a huge AA population, this demographic (which are also a huge chunk of his constituents) would benefit greatly.

I told him his view as of now was wildly out of touch with what his constituents actually want and cited Phil Murphy's margin of victory (which he dismissed as simply and anti-Christie/Trump vote and not an endorsement of legal mj).

In the end he didn't sound like firm no, but he definitely needs some more pressure from his constituents to get him on the right side of this issue. If you haven't contacted him, I would do so ASAP.

I didn't say it wasn't a stupid reason, just one that has worked for decades, same as any reasonable reform like needle exchanges and expanded drug treatment. They're cowards who fear that headline from an election opponent who sees a way to attack them.

Ugh, soft on crime is a terrible reason. Marijuana should be an industry and not a criminal enterprise. Getting this stuff off the black market and into regulated storefronts will only serve to reduce low-level criminality. It should also reduce access to minors, which is another concern that is brought up frequently. Believe it or not, drug dealers do not ask for ID before making a sale - regulated businesses will.

mpwJC wrote:I reached out to him on Facebook as well. The article doesn't explain any of his possible reasoning for being against legalization, so I'll let him make his case, but I will vote against him in every election if he isn't in favor of something the vast majority of NJ and Hudson County supports.

Half this opposition is just spineless pols afraid of being painted "soft on crime" in the next election. That's why only in Vermont was legalization passed by the legislature, all the rest were plebiscites where they could claim it wasn't them that did it.

I reached out to him on Facebook as well. The article doesn't explain any of his possible reasoning for being against legalization, so I'll let him make his case, but I will vote against him in every election if he isn't in favor of something the vast majority of NJ and Hudson County supports.

There is a new alternate marijuana bill that will be introduced in the next couple of weeks. The alternate bill will allow home growing, and it will also have a lower tax rate on the sale of marijuana at dispensaries. I really hope this is the bill that Phil Murphy signs.

jerseymom wrote:I know that "traditional" smokers are not a protected class, and landlords can write and enforce no-smoking provisions in their leases. Are people who are allowed "medical marijuana" a protected class? Can a landlord prohibit them from renting a home?

Interested in knowing the legal issues here - particularly those related to other tenants' health, second-hand smoke, and residual smoke impact on the living space.

I would think that given the non-smoke alternatives like edibles and concentrates, particularly for the medical uses, there should be no reason actual smoking should be protected.

jerseymom wrote:I know that "traditional" smokers are not a protected class, and landlords can write and enforce no-smoking provisions in their leases. Are people who are allowed "medical marijuana" a protected class? Can a landlord prohibit them from renting a home?

Interested in knowing the legal issues here - particularly those related to other tenants' health, second-hand smoke, and residual smoke impact on the living space.

I just wish people would stop asking logical questions related to how this cannabis decriminalization / sales process will work. All you need to know is that everyone in Oregon, California and Colorado are very happy with their laws and that these types of illegitimate obstructionist questions are only delaying the will of the people. And yes... cannabis users will become a protected class because of the taxes they will be paying.

I know that "traditional" smokers are not a protected class, and landlords can write and enforce no-smoking provisions in their leases. Are people who are allowed "medical marijuana" a protected class? Can a landlord prohibit them from renting a home?

Interested in knowing the legal issues here - particularly those related to other tenants' health, second-hand smoke, and residual smoke impact on the living space.

hero69 wrote:perhaps the na's will take a nimby approach, or maybe next. was there a lot of na resistance in other states/cities that allow municipal marijuana. i would think ideal locations would be along the commercial strips Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:Time to for supporters to pack the NA meetings and demand they be allowed to be opened Downtown. The NIMBYs in those groups will relegate these shops to dangerous and obscure parts of the city if they can and will most likely use hyperbolic "think of the children arguments" to get the city to comply.

Traditionally in Jersey City planning and zoning boards will suggest that property and business owners visit the neighborhood associations to iron out any concerns. Often cafe/restaurant owners will make nice and bring free baked goods or the like to these meetings. I wonder how this will now play out.....

perhaps the na's will take a nimby approach, or maybe next. was there a lot of na resistance in other states/cities that allow municipal marijuana. i would think ideal locations would be along the commercial strips Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:Time to for supporters to pack the NA meetings and demand they be allowed to be opened Downtown. The NIMBYs in those groups will relegate these shops to dangerous and obscure parts of the city if they can and will most likely use hyperbolic "think of the children arguments" to get the city to comply.

Time to for supporters to pack the NA meetings and demand they be allowed to be opened Downtown. The NIMBYs in those groups will relegate these shops to dangerous and obscure parts of the city if they can and will most likely use hyperbolic "think of the children arguments" to get the city to comply.

I’m a supporter of legalization of marijuana + in next few weeks our planning dept is going to clean up JC zoning laws so that we can get ahead of where we’ll allow/not allow dispensaries, grow facilities etc. we want our zoning to be clear w/community input + to avoid lawsuits

With the marijuana legalization debate set to heat up this year in New Jersey, leaders in two of the state's highest-profile towns say they have no problem with weed businesses in their cities.

Should state lawmakers legalize pot, count Jersey City and Asbury Park among those likely to be a part of what could eventually be a billion-dollar industry.

A bill to legalize recreational marijuana lets municipalities to decide if they want to allow pot sales and production, or miss out on millions in tax revenue.

On Wednesday, Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop tweeted that he and city officials would be working with the public to "clean up" zoning laws to clarify where dispensaries and grow facilities would be allowed to operate.

With the marijuana legalization debate set to heat up this year in New Jersey, leaders in two of the state's highest-profile towns say they have no problem with weed businesses in their cities.

Should state lawmakers legalize pot, count Jersey City and Asbury Park among those likely to be a part of what could eventually be a billion-dollar industry.

A bill to legalize recreational marijuana lets municipalities to decide if they want to allow pot sales and production, or miss out on millions in tax revenue.

On Wednesday, Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop tweeted that he and city officials would be working with the public to "clean up" zoning laws to clarify where dispensaries and grow facilities would be allowed to operate.

K-Lo2 wrote:LOL! I wouldn't know!!! Why don't all the senators in the "legal" states band together to produce some remedial federal legislation?

That might actually be happening.

Congressmen and governors, from both parties, are furious over Sessions' plans to enforce federal marijuana laws. Some are upset over the claim that it violates federalist principles; some because they want to protect a nascent industry that is generating billions in state tax revenues.

There are stocks and ETFs for marijuana companies, which obviously took a bit of a hit. Even stocks for legitimate businesses (like Scotts, which makes fertilizer) dropped after Sessions' announcement.

While I don't think it will happen any time soon, it seems to me that federal legalization is inevitable. It's already getting too big and too popular to stop.